Right now in science class we're working on Evolution, and I'm the most well versed on it in the class. I asked him what his beliefs were and according to him it is against Federal and State Law to disclose any information pertaining to Evolution and Creationism.

But my real question is how can I give arguments against Evolution? I don't see how someone is supposed to say that whale and horse evolution is false. In the video he showed there were skulls, knee caps, hip bones, and even a pelvis.

Right now in science class we're working on Evolution, and I'm the most well versed on it in the class. I asked him what his beliefs were and according to him it is against Federal and State Law to disclose any information pertaining to Evolution and Creationism.

But my real question is how can I give arguments against Evolution? I don't see how someone is supposed to say that whale and horse evolution is false. In the video he showed there were skulls, knee caps, hip bones, and even a pelvis.

The problem is the inference that is used with these bones.

1- Scientists cannot prove that the organism that became that fossil is the ancestor of anything2- Scientists use assumption based logic to claim that similarities = common descent

Here is an analogy I made, I hope it is appropriate

Compare an orange rubber ball and the sun, both are round and both are orange does this mean that the sun "evolved" from an orange rubber ball?

No, similarities do nothing for common descent since it is based on the assumption that evolution is true, (thus the assumption that everything is descended from a common ancestor). Hence the evidence here presupposes that evolution is true, thus to cite such a thing as evidence of evolution is merely circular reasoning

Remember, tests are to test you on how well you learned evolutionist assumptions about the data, not how well you can refute them, so don't try to go in guns blazing into a test and fail just to prove a point. What you really want to prove is that you have the best understanding of evolution in the class, and still reject it. Try to answer written questions like "according to most scientists" etc. Just some advice I picked up at creation.com:http://creation.com/...about-evolutionhttp://creation.com/...on-vs-evolution

Remember, tests are to test you on how well you learned evolutionist assumptions about the data, not how well you can refute them, so don't try to go in guns blazing into a test and fail just to prove a point. What you really want to prove is that you have the best understanding of evolution in the class, and still reject it. Try to answer written questions like "according to most scientists" etc. Just some advice I picked up at creation.com

That's not for the test, I'm really just curious why these things are false.

It's funny, I understood evolution more than the rest of my whole class and rejected it. And quaker they are false because they are based on assumptions, not evidence. I thought Gilbo already laid that out pretty well.

Right now in science class we're working on Evolution, and I'm the most well versed on it in the class. I asked him what his beliefs were and according to him it is against Federal and State Law to disclose any information pertaining to Evolution and Creationism.

But my real question is how can I give arguments against Evolution? I don't see how someone is supposed to say that whale and horse evolution is false. In the video he showed there were skulls, knee caps, hip bones, and even a pelvis.

Gotta have that protection to keep evolution top dog. Dooo noooot question the truuuue proven faaact.

You can't unless you learn it and understand it. The problem most creationists have arguing against evolution is that they don't actually understand what it is, so that those of us that at least understand the basics, are left scratching our heads just wondering where on earth to start.

Most of the time all you guys have is a bunch of misconceptions that don't resemble what the ToE is because all you've ever heard or read is from creationists web sites that, well, let's be tactful, are a bit wrong most of the time.

Know your enemy and argue the facts from there.

don't see how someone is supposed to say that whale and horse evolution is false. In the video he showed there were skulls, knee caps, hip bones, and even a pelvis.

Being an independent, free thinking person, you'll consider the evidence you're presented with objectively and decide whether it holds water or not. Innocent until proven guilty remember.

I agree and I will add that most evolutionists don't understand evolution either. I have seen, for example, much resorting to Lamarckism for explanations. I recommend the Top Ten Myths of Evolution as reading for everyone.

The problem most creationists have arguing against evolution is that they don't actually understand what it is, so that those of us that at least understand the basics, are left scratching our heads just wondering where on earth to start.

Well I think the problem is not that creationists don't understand evolution, but rather that evolutionists don't understand, or don't want to understand, or simply just ignore the fact that some arguments are abstractions used to illustrate a concept. Evolutionists simply exploit this because it suits them to portray creationists as ignorant.

You can't unless you learn it and understand it. The problem most creationists have arguing against evolution is that they don't actually understand what it is, so that those of us that at least understand the basics, are left scratching our heads just wondering where on earth to start.Most of the time all you guys have is a bunch of misconceptions that don't resemble what the ToE is because all you've ever heard or read is from creationists web sites that, well, let's be tactful, are a bit wrong most of the time.

In other words if we disagree we are just plain ignorant of the supposed fact on TOE, right?

Know your enemy and argue the facts from there.

Maybe you'd like to start a thread on what misconceptions you see from our ignorance and correct us on it? But I must warn you, this forum is not as a push over as you might think. So you better have your ducks in a row before you try. Or at least get your buddies from the sites you hang out to help you.

In other words if we disagree we are just plain ignorant of the supposed fact on TOE, right?

Well yes, quite often that's the case. Not always but usually.

Maybe you'd like to start a thread on what misconceptions you see from our ignorance and correct us on it? But I must warn you, this forum is not as a push over as you might think. So you better have your ducks in a row before you try. Or at least get your buddies from the sites you hang out to help you.

I've no desire to boil the ocean. I'm here mostly to try understand why some Christians have a problem with science not teach evolution (which I don't consider myself to be expert on.)

As does science. Inference based assumptions are okish if there are thousands of them pointing all in the same direction - not so if they are individual and random. No scientist would disagree.

No you are wrong. Inferences are not scientific, they are merely opinionated claims. If I had a million people infer that the sky was green would that make it green?

Inferences are ONLY ever used in the creation of a hypothesis. Their use in anything else denotes that thing to pseudoscience, or outside the bounds of scientific inquiry, (which means it isn't science)

No you are wrong. Inferences are not scientific"...............Inferences are ONLY ever used in the creation of a hypothesis.

Scientists generally regard a hypothesis as scientific.

Their use in anything else denotes that thing to pseudoscience, or outside the bounds of scientific inquiry, (which means it isn't science)

Inferences are, of course, a form of evidence. Whether they build to produce a proof is debatable, but certainly no real scientist would be able to rely on pure inference. In those circumstances, the hypothesis would probably remain unproven pending more information, a bit like your dinosaur jelly.

Inferences are, of course, a form of evidence. Whether they build to produce a proof is debatable, but certainly no real scientist would be able to rely on pure inference. In those circumstances, the hypothesis would probably remain unproven pending more information, a bit like your dinosaur jelly.

Scientists generally regard a hypothesis as scientific.

Inferences are, of course, a form of evidence. Whether they build to produce a proof is debatable, but certainly no real scientist would be able to rely on pure inference. In those circumstances, the hypothesis would probably remain unproven pending more information,

a bit like your dinosaur jelly.

You are quoting me out of context.. which is a clear case of intellectual dishonesty.

I also said

" Inferences are ONLY ever used in the creation of a hypothesis. Their use in anything else denotes that thing to pseudoscience, or outside the bounds of scientific inquiry, (which means it isn't science)"

Meaning that inferences are ok in the creation of a hypothesis hence your first point is refuted as it was a claim based on misrepresentation of my post.

No inferences are not evidence

The "dinosaur jelly" has been verified with many experiments and has been accepted in peer reviewed papers... As I have said before you need to research things more.

However this was not a part of this claim hence it was a (failed) attempt at a rhetorical dig...

Here are actual evidence... rather then your attempts at claiming inference as evidence.

The "dinosaur jelly" has been verified with many experiments and has been accepted in peer reviewed papers... As I have said before you need to research things more..............Here are actual evidence... rather then your attempts at claiming inference as evidence.

Yes, like I have said before, it's all very interesting. If it turns out to be reliable we'll be able to get quite a lot of information from it.

It's a bit funny Tangle, you consider something that has never been observed to be "beyond reasonable scientific doubt" and when you are shown something that has been observed you say "if it turns out to be reliable".

It seems to me you doubt what you see, but put incredible faith in what you don't see.

It's a bit funny Tangle, you consider something that has never been observed to be "beyond reasonable scientific doubt" and when you are shown something that has been observed you say "if it turns out to be reliable".

It seems to me you doubt what you see, but put incredible faith in what you don't see.

I don't put any faith in anything. You appear to think that I care which way any of this goes, I don't, I simply watch with interest. My world won't fall apart if the whole edifice of the ToE comes tumbling down because we suddenly find a species unrelated to anything else with its own unique genome based on silica. It would be incredibly exciting. Sadly, I'm pretty certain that that or anything like it isn't going to happen.

I remember years ago when the whole ID stuff started to come out I genuinely wanted it to be true because, like the discussions at CERN now about the speed of light, it would mean we need a whole new set of explanations. But of course it all turned out to be a complete hokum.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I do think that the possibility of getting DNA from millions of year old bones (fossils actually) is genuinely exciting and I'm hoping that it all proves out.